Climate Change From Different Perspectives

Anything dealing with climate change is bound to provoke an argument. And our story on Berkeley physicist Richard Muller’s recent conversion to a believer in man-made global warming, which he made in an op-ed in the New York Times, certainly stirred the pot. In addition to preparing a video story on the PBS NewsHour, I had written a blog that included extended remarks from Anthony Watts, a well-known blogger and prominent voice in the skeptic community. Watts — a former California TV weatherman who runs a company that provides weather data to TV stations — says he doesn’t completely discount global warming, but he says that much of the data recording temperatures are flawed because the stations are in areas like urban settings which retain heat and therefore read too high.

The idea of the online post — in part — was to let the audience hear more about the views of a prominent voice from the community of skeptics. In the past, we have on occasion provided a more expansive view from the overwhelming majority of climate scientists who say climate change is real, an ever-growing problem and one that is getting significantly worse because of our own contribution to greenhouse gases. (In fact, my colleague Hari Sreenivasan posted links to some of that prior reporting earlier today.) We thought the online post with Watts would provide a chance for viewers to hear more about the skeptical perspective than we have done recently.

That said — and as many of you wrote us to complain — we should have not ONLY posted additional comments from Watts’ perspective. So we have more interviews and responses from the scientific community about climate change. Let’s start on the question of whether temperature data is flawed. That was raised by Watts, and his views on that are being heavily criticized on the web today.

The American public can be confident in NOAA’s long-standing surface temperature record, one of the world’s most comprehensive, accurate and trusted data sets. This record has been constructed through many innovative methods to test the robustness of the climate data record developed and made openly available for all to inspect by NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center. Numerous peer-reviewed studies conclusively show that U.S. temperatures have risen and continue to rise with recent widespread record-setting temperatures in the USA. There is no doubt that NOAA’s temperature record is scientifically sound and reliable. To ensure accuracy of the record, scientists use peer-reviewed methods to account for all potential inaccuracies in the temperature readings such as changes in station location, instrumentation and replacement and urban heat effects.

Specifically, NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center published a scientific peer-reviewed paper (Menne, et al., 2010) that compared trends from stations that were considered well-sited and stations that received lower ratings on siting conditions, which found that the U.S. average temperature trend is not inflated by poor station siting. A subsequent research study led by university and private sector scientists reached the same conclusion (Fall et al. 2011). Additionally, the Department of Commerce Inspector General reviewed the US Historical Climatology Network dataset in July 2010 and concluded that “the respondents to our inquiries about the use of and adjustments to the USHCN data generally expressed confidence in the [USHCN] Version 2 dataset.”

Looking ahead to the next century, NOAA has implemented the U.S. Climate Reference Network (USCRN) – with 114 stations across the contiguous United States located in pristine, well-sited areas. Comparing several years of trends from the well-sited USCRN stations with USHCN shows that the temperature trends closely correspond – again validating the accuracy of the USHCN U.S. temperature record.

NOAA also provides this link for those who want more information. [Note from Anthony, see what we found using a new method (not employed by NOAA but endorsed by WMO) in Watts et al 2012, here. Strange that they don’t mention the General Accounting office report on USHCN (what the erroneously refer to as the inspector general’s report) was due to my inquiry, not theirs.]

There are plenty of other links where you can find data and information about this question of temperature measurements. One of note that we are including here is the website, skepticalscience.com, which examines and pushes back on the critique from the skeptics’ community.

One point that we tried to make in the broadcast piece was that Richard Muller, in fact, had his own doubts in the past on temperature readings with some issues that were similar to Watts’ criticisms. But he and his daughter, mathematician Elizabeth Muller, told us they looked closely at climate data and now clearly believe that human-induced climate change is happening. Here’s more of what they told us:

146 thoughts on “PBS backtracks due to viewer pressure”

Under Jane Lubchenko, NOAA has become as anti-scientific & political activist a propaganda organ as the EPA. Her shameless minions are systematically “adjusting” recent temperatures up & older data down, so that NCDC is now at least as corrupted as GISS & HadCRU’s cooked books.

Anthony, just remember… any publicity is good publicity!
My thanks for all you have to put up with! Shameful that some are so hard-headed and hard-hearted that they can not and will not accept any other view as having any merit whatsoever except their own!

“Looking ahead to the next century, NOAA has implemented the U.S. Climate Reference Network (USCRN)…”

It seems rather unusually long-term planning from NOAA, to be planning for the 22nd century here in the second decade of the 21st. I guess it’s never too early to get those grant applications ready.
/sarc

I thought America was the last bastion of freedom of speech? Apparently you can only make an uncontested comment if it has already been vetted by Big Brother and approved, otherwise he will insist on spending tax payers money putting his point of view.

If you read Muller’s Grist interview I don’t think you can support the statement that he was ever a sceptic. Here is the money quote:

“Do you consider yourself an environmentalist?
Oh yes. [Laughs.] In fact, back in the early ’80s, I resigned from the Sierra Club over the issue of global warming. At that time, they were opposing nuclear power. What I wrote them in my letter of resignation was that, if you oppose nuclear power, the U.S. will become much more heavily dependent on fossil fuels, and that this is a pollutant to the atmosphere that is very likely to lead to global warming.”

Before they had a reasonable amount of data he was sure enough of CO2 causing global warming that he pushed nuclear hard and split with the Sierra Club over it. How is that Sceptical of Global Warming??

Get over it. This bozo has been playing people for years. Maybe he REALLY BELIEVES, but, it still puts money in his pocket through his company!!!

This should be a bit of a nice example of the entrenched institutional response (Karl) to any suggestion of challenge to the ’cause’. Points for Mr Michels to note:

1) NOAA sleight of hand when talking about about changes in Trends vs. those of the Absolute Values (USCRN) – Anthony’s post using the new values only reveal July was NOT a recording-breaking month
2) NOAA quietly disappearing the most egregious stations on one hand whilst crowing that it doesn’t make any difference…
3) Menne et al 2010 paper was published by NOAA using Anthony’s Surfacestation.org data without his permission (what kind of ethics do these people have?)

And so….here they come, firing back – and Anthony did nothing but express reasonable doubts. Question for Mr. Michels – who do you think are the wild-eyed fanatics now? ;-D

I find it amazing that among all the hate and wild assertions against Anthony Watts is allowed to continue in light of the fact that Anthony could have been even more assertive about the TOTAL LACK of evidence for ANY man-made climate change.

Anthony did not discount ‘global warming’ because he knows that it has been happening, but global warming is NOT saying that it is man-made and for good reason.

Rather, it is the SUN that is the cause as the Earth has gone through many regimes of global warming over many centuries.

Rather, what Anthony chose to say was well-balanced as he provided a throughly thoughtful engagement of the facts of the causes of global warming. But even here, Anthony’s moderate statements have been subject to vile comments and attacks from the AGW mafia.

And, it is no wonder.

This is because NO ONE – not a single proponent of man-made global warming – has accurately forecast seasonal climate – monthly forecasts – though claiming what the climate will be like 50 years from now but they cannot forecast the climate/weather 50 DAYS from now. Does anyone find that curious? I sure do.

How are AGW proponents, including the AGW careerists staffing NOAA claim something that violates the very laws of physics?

This is quite typical of ideologues. They claim superior knowledge but they cannot forecast. This applies to NOAA/NWS as well whom I regularly out-forecast by means of astronomical forecasting of seasonal and long-range climate forecasting in the real world. Try to find an accurate prior seasonal forecast from NOAA and you will not be able to.

NOAA has long been staffed and run by the AGW mafia. But now that they are aging, at the end of their ideological careers, and in light of ClimateGate I and ClimateGate II, along with the backtracking of the Obama Administration and some other countries away from the United Nation’s IPCC – they are all very desperate.

We can see their desperation in these attacks on Anthony Watts and all others who dare to question the fallacy and lies of man-made global warming.

The AGW mafia is losing the war on humanity and they know it, but no amount of personal attacks or attempts to make people like Anthony Watts appear as a fool will change the laws of physics.

There is no such thing as man-made global warming. There never has been and never will be either. It violates the first and second laws of Thermodynamics – the very laws of physics.

Thank you, Anthony for your fortitude in the face of adversity. I submitted the following to NPR, but it hasn’t been posted yet:

“Thank you for presenting as reasonable a news summary as is likely possible, given the contentious and divisive nature of this climate issue. Mr. Watts is a voice of calm among the others in this debate. I clearly remember the catastrophic manmade global cooling scare of the late 1970s, pushed by some of the same scientists who are pushing catastrophic manmade global warming this time around. I also remember the polywater scare that mercifully did not gain traction with the major news outlets. Be thankful that the Bathybius issue was discredited more than a century ago. Mr. Watts the meteorologist is to be commended for seeing through the fog earlier than most of us.”

Regarding adverse comments, I always turn to this quote from Benjamin Franklin athttp://www.2think.org/priestly.shtml
[…]
“Remember me affectionately to good Dr. Price and to the honest heretic Dr. Priestly. I do not call him honest by way of distinction; for I think all the heretics I have known have been virtuous men. They have the virtue of fortitude or they would not venture to own their heresy; and they cannot afford to be deficient in any of the other virtues, as that would give advantage to their many enemies; and they have not like orthodox sinners, such a number of friends to excuse or justify them. Do not, however mistake me. It is not to my good friend’s heresy that I impute his honesty. On the contrary, ’tis his honesty that has brought upon him the character of heretic. I am ever, my dear friend, yours sincerely, “

I just made the following comment to the PBS “back-tracking” post about an hour ago.

Congratulations for the even-handedness of your report.
The hardest thing to deal with in the climate-change debate is the rhetoric/polarization concerning the veracity of the claims made concerning anthropogenic influences.
I heartily recommend that everyone read and digest information from all aspects of this contentious issue. I have and have been able to draw conclusions that satisfy my scientific curiosity. As a retired chemist, I can appreciate the complexity and the depth of this subject.
I may even renew my PBS subscription because of this program.

I just made an additional post to express my dismay at the medieval opinions of so many commenters.

NOAA says
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration wrote a response to us and stands by its record on temperature data. Here is what NOAA sent:

‘The American public can be confident in NOAA’s long-standing surface temperature record, one of the world’s most comprehensive, accurate and trusted data sets’.

******************************************************************************************
If they claim a long standing temperature record why and how does it keep on getting adjusted?

What reason can there be for adjusting temperatures from sixty/seventy years or more, ago? I think it’s just because they think they can get away with altering data that old, whereas if they altered current data to get the same trends people would notice.

Their frantic back peddling just shows they had no idea of the power of your and others criticisms. The power comes from irrefutable truth. NOAA’s response is just an example of the genre. Well done. The degree of backlash probably indicates the degree of ‘inflicted truth’
Muller was never a skeptic. He only took offense to Mann’s blatant deception. (Unfortunately for Muller, a long record of his previous pro AGW pronouncements is indellibly available, in so many places that even SkepticalScience moderators will never be able to delete them all). Then proved that the measured temps were measured. They were, but as you have more than adequately shown, not correctly for historical comparison purposes. Then used a simple correlation to conclude all was man made for over the past two centuries, when even the AR4 did not go there. Stupid is as stupid does, including now provably NPR.

Having seen the video as excerpted above, it shows how excellently the Warmists have turned the argument to whether there is warming at all. Muller doesn’t say there that it is anthropogenic warming. It seems most skeptics are falling for the goalpost changing. You are being converted, for the public’s misunderstanding., as deniers of any warming, not doubters of the degree of man-made influences. It is seems the reporter believes the issue is whether there is warming or not. Therefore, fail for you. They redefined the issues, and you are losing. Luckily Muller looks a little crazed.

Big Fail. The issues should be 1. who is funding them and, 2. Man-made effects and positive feedbacks. Since any open examination of no. 1 faces immediate rebukes from the plutocrat-loving right-wing scream machine, no. 2 should be focused upon. It really is the core issue, after all.

the respondents to our inquiries about the use of and adjustments to the USHCN data generally expressed confidence in the [USHCN] Version 2 dataset
On the bright side, there’s this from the Inspector General. It reads like he or she was barred from a real investigation and is communicating that by saying, “the perpetrators say they are innocent.”

The best thing about that video was the egghead from Stanford declaring that skeptics had won as far as Washington is concerned. That’s the bottom line. You’re not going to reform “science” and suddenly assure that all possibilities are discovered,politics be damned. You CAN elect Congressmen who will vote to cut budgets and repeal laws. Spend your money. Knock on doors. Man the phones . Believe me, it works.

Sceptics have just been given an extremely good opportunity to pounce and refute. NOW IS THE TIME THAT NO WARMIST CLAIM GOES UNCHALLENGED IF ITS BOGUS, NO GOVERNMENT PROPAGANDA ALLOWED TO THE STAND. Sorry to be shouting but you have just been given an unprecedented (sorry..) opportunity to drive the dialog! Take it! Refute the bogus percentages, challenge the obtuse data and conclusions! THIS IS THE OPPORTUNITY YOU ALL HAVEN WAITING FOR!

Well done mr. Watts.
There is still a lot of people who are able to think independent thoughts. And history shows that every time the activists are forced to come out in the sunlight, they loose. You have triggered some reactions – let’s see what happens next.

“There is no doubt that NOAA’s temperature record is scientifically sound and reliable.”

Really? NO doubt? A record that has all sorts of adjustments applied to it and is of course subject to human error and NOAA has NO doubt. Boggles the mind. Not even one caveat like on average or within reasonable accuracy expectations or something. Basically, he has faith that they’ll never again discover another bias and change the data with another adjustment. Glad he put that on the record, perhaps it’ll come back to bite him in the near future.

This whole affair is extremely frustrating. PBS, like the rest of the media, consistently frames the debate in terms of whether or not humans are causing climate change. And worse yet, sometimes they even talk about the totally meaningless proposition that “climate change is real.”

Us skeptics need to remember that as soon as the debate is framed in these terms, the alarmists have already won: “CO2 is a greenhouse gas, so human CO2 emissions will cause the Earth to be warmer than it otherwise would have been – Checkmate Deniers!”

In his interview, Anthony did indeed explicitly accept that the Earth has warmed over the past 100 years, and he strongly implied that increased CO2 concentrations has contributed to the warming. But those caveats were too little too late. The debate was already framed in a way that portrays Anthony and his fellow skeptics as folks who think climate change isn’t real.

Skeptics need to (somehow) reframe the debate as one about climate sensitivity, the reliability of model-based predictions, trends in extreme weather events, the expected magnitude of future sea level rise, and the various costs and benefits of different efforts to cope with climate-related problems. I know that’s easier said than done.

Please read the comments at Joe Romm’s site. This is not pressure exerted by PBS viewers per se, this is a mob provoked by people who consistently refuse to debate the science. How many opportunities have Joe Romm, et al. been given to defend their beliefs with reproducible, empirical data, and refused? And when Anthony states very simply why he’s skeptical of the science, rather than defend their beliefs with data, they organize a shouting contest to shout him down. Typical; we shouldn’t have expected any less. I just hope PBS has the balls to stand up to the “Rage Boys”. Better yet, they should challenge Joe Romm to bring his data, and put up or shut up!

I read some of the hate filled comments about Anthony’s appearance on PBS and was surprised at the venom and ignorance, despite my cynicism. I wrote the PBS ombudsman that their cringing take-back was disappointing but not at all surprising. I also asked that they implement the changes you requested. Skeptical Science seems to be behind some of the worst of the comments.

I take back my suggestion there was no real attention to anthropogenic things in the PBS bit. According to Nelson’s transcription above, Collins of LLL suggested all sorts of effects in the climate…just doesn’t mention temperature directly. In my opinion it should be highlighted with its own post here and ridiculed. That is, forget Muller, follow the hiding of the surface heat records.

I thought your interview was well balanced, thoughtful and you certainly did not come across as the crazy who has been driving the warmists “crazy”. Good job, WUWT has become one of the daily websites I check along with JWR, NRO, WSJ. You have arrived with the big boys.

“Looking ahead to the next century, NOAA has implemented the U.S. Climate Reference Network (USCRN) – with 114 stations across the contiguous United States located in pristine, well-sited areas. Comparing several years of trends from the well-sited USCRN stations with USHCN shows that the temperature trends closely correspond – again validating the accuracy of the USHCN U.S. temperature record.”

Well if the USHCN is so good – NOAA has obviously wasted huge amounts of taxpayer funds in putting out a new USCRN network for no good reason.

As for the _trend_ argument; as there has been no significant warming since the time USCRN was first implemented then the trends of no significant warming are likely to be similar!

Do the Global Warming Activists think that we are going away? No apologies here for being down right intractable. Either they come clean about the real wealth redistribution agenda or learn to live with a never-ending fight with we well-heeled scientists who insist on science based on fact and not SCARE tactics.

The more lies that the AGW wack-jobs try to perpetrate on the public, the better it is for we, the skeptics.

Mr Watts needs to send a response to Michels that answers the NOAA responses point for point
and requests that Michels provide it to his viewers in the same way he provided NOAA’s response.
After Michel’s responds, Watts should post his rebuttal for all to see.

Wow. Warmists have gone crazy. This reminds me of good old days of debates over whether consumption of saturated fat and cholesterol really cause heart disease (they don’t at all) and lately at least for me on whether sun really causes skin cancers (a huge catch 22 considering vitamin D is very potent cancer fighter that can prevent all kinds of cancers considering that most people are deficient in vitamin D).

Missed the PBS show. But since PBS is part of the liberal/progressive/leftist main stream media, it doesn’t surprise me that: 1) PBS would cave in to pressure from its predominantly leftist/progressive/liberal viewers; 2) Allow NOAA rebut Anthony unchallenged; and 3) The comments from the leftists/progressives/liberals would be hate filled and venomous. Next January lets pray we have a change in Washington that will cut all funding to PBS.

WILLIAM COLLINS: So one, one question that I think that occurs to many people is how do we know that global warming is due to mankind? ‘Cos after all, if you go to the Grand Canyon, you see a history of climate for the last 600 million years right there on the canyon walls in front of you. So it’s obvious the Earth’s climate can change, and it can change for perfectly natural reasons.

X Anomaly: What perfectly natural reasons are used by Collins? The Sun and Volcanoes. This statement epitomizes a “cargo cult climate scientist”. Collins implies that an external push is needed in order to cause a change system. This automatically implies that natural variability not associated with volcanoes and the sun is of no importance, however, such internally generated behavior (whether chaotic or deterministic) could be of vital importance (Royal Society Summery of the Science 2010)

WILLIAM COLLINS: So we’ve been looking for fingerprints of man’s influence on climate sort of in some sense, a smoking gun, that would prove that it’s man that’s causing the change. And we’ve actually found those fingerprints in the climate system.

X Anomaly: You have only found what your confirmation bias has allowed for, by excluding in role for internal variability.

WILLIAM COLLINS: Some of them have to do with how the temperature of the surface and the atmosphere are changing together. It turns out that that’s a very strong fingerprint of manmade climate change.

X Anomaly: Such remarks are often made by climate scientists. All have the same in common, they deny internally generated natural variability can cause change on the order of magnitude of what we are experiencing today, even though there are no satisfactory explanations of the largest climate changes known. Why would you rule something out if there is no satisfactory explanation, for say, the last ice age.

WILLIAM COLLINS: You can’t get that, that single (sic) that we’re seeing from volcanoes. You can’t get that signal from the sun. And those are two of the, really, the primary natural causes for climate change.

X Anomaly: *Cough*

WILLIAM COLLINS: The only way that we know of to get the atmosphere’s temperature to change in the way that it’s changed since the early 20th century is to add greenhouse gases. So that’s a fairly strong hint.

X Anomaly: Yep, ignore all other potential variables and bingo, you get the right answer.

WILLIAM COLLINS: We also know from very good evidence that man is responsible for the increase in greenhouse gases. We can show that from basic laboratory chemistry. And that, that fact is really not in much dispute.

X Anomaly: Completely agree.

WILLIAM COLLINS: So there’s several signatures like the temperature that implicate man. You can’t get climate to change in the way that it’s changing, for example, if we have fewer volcanoes today than we had in the middle of the 20th century. Just not possible.

X Anomaly: GHGs do cause warming,however, an estimate of how much warming will occur due to man (and woman) needs to be backed up by another piece of additional evidence, rather than multiple correlations. Correlation does not equal causation (even if it is done multiple times, like grant applications).

PBS did not do a report on Judith Curry, Ph.D. of Georgia Tech when she became more skeptical about the impact of carbon dioixide as a greenhouse gas. PBS did not do a report on William Happer Ph.D. of Princeton when he expressed skeptism about “global warming”. PBS has never covered the work of Roy Spencer Ph.D. and John Christy Ph.D. of the Unversity of Alabama and their continuing work to create an unbiased record of atmospheric temperatures from NASA satellite data. PBS has not covered Danish Physicist Henric Svensmark and his cosmic global warming theory. I could go on and on. PBS only did a former sort of skeptic seeking fame and money by doing a non peer reviewed sort of temperature study to please the side with all the Federal Grant money. His future is now financially secure. And, in the process in an effort to provide balance it used an interview with a well manner, well placed but non Univeristy Ph.D. skeptic. It was sure this would cover their tushes as a balancer but make the skeptical side look bad. It didn’t work out well enough to satisfy the deperate global warming alarmists and they are raising the roof with PBS. What did all of this prove? Nothing we didn’t already know. PBS is highly biased and supports a Democrat. liberal agenda. PBS is an embarrasment to Journalism, but no more so than NBC, CBS and ABC, the AP and the New York Times. This episode is simply one more experience. Thank goodness Anthony was strong enough to make them squirm.

It’s worth keeping in mind that the Newshour simply refused to report on Climategate. Many viewers, including myself, wrote letters to the Newshour during Climategate, asking why they wouldn’t cover it. Eventually they posted a message from their ombudsman (or somebody) to the effect that the science was settled and they didn’t view Climategate as newsworthy.

So in a strong sense it is big progress for the Newshour to attend to WUWT, Anthony Watts and skeptical folks at all. I hope this isn’t simply their once-a-decade acknowledgment that skeptics exist and may not all be kooks.

NOAA responded for the simple reason that they feel threatened. ClimateGate 1 revealed a fear of WUWT by “the team” when the readership was a fraction of what it is now. That NOAA felt the need to respond suggests they take the criticism from Anthony seriously, likely far more seriously than their comments indicate.

That said, I have to agree with some of the comments by Follow the Money. The questions the PBS interviewer asked in part framed the debate. Anthony’s answers were drawn from his area of expertise, temperature record, and this framed the discussion further. While I’m delighted to learn that NOAA is running scared, and I know from being interviewed myself on complex topics that it is devilishly difficult to reframe the discussion when the interviewer is in charge both during and afterward, I do try a different tact when someone asks me if a “believe” in global warming or not. My answer runs something like this:

That, in my opinion, is the wrong question. When it comes to global warming, we really need to be asking three questions:

1. How much has the globe warmed?
2. How much of that warming is anthropogenic?
3. What is the cost of mitigating that warming versus the cost of adapting to it?

Oakden Wolf says:
September 18, 2012 at 5:48 pm
Has Watts et al 2012 been submitted for publication yet? If so, what journal?
==============
Supposed to be submitted within the next few weeks. Haven’t heard which journal, either. Any news on when and where, Anthony?

A meager PBS attempt at two sided debate sends the Forecast the Facts syncopaths in a tirade against the “unchecked platform to a virulent climate change denier”. Imagine if the real, three sided debate, discussing the Thermodynamics and Radiation Transmission errors of the GHE hypothesis, were discussed in a manner that laymen could grasp…GASP !

“Forecasting of Facts” sounds strangely presumptive and very non-scientific. Rather than objectively gather and analyze data….the outcome based education, post normal faux science devotees will ‘forecast the agenda driven facts’ that they want. Ignorance is Bliss…..and PBS got the “BS” part of their mission right.

An alternative explanation for differential temperature trends at the surface and in the lower troposphere

[1] This paper investigates surface and satellite temperature trends over the period from 1979 to 2008. Surface temperature data sets from the National Climate Data Center and the Hadley Center show larger trends over the 30-year period than the lower-tropospheric data from the University of Alabama in Huntsville and Remote Sensing Systems data sets. The differences between trends observed in the surface and lower-tropospheric satellite data sets are statistically significant in most comparisons, with much greater differences over land areas than over ocean areas. These findings strongly suggest that there remain important inconsistencies between surface and satellite records.

We find that there have, in general, been larger linear trends in surface temperature data sets such as the NCDC and HadCRUTv3 surface data sets when compared with the UAH and RSS lower-tropospheric data sets, especially over land areas. This variation in trends is also confirmed by the larger temperature anomalies that have been reported for near surface air temperatures [e.g., Zorita et al., 2008; Chase et al., 2006, 2008; Connolley, 2008]. The differences between surface and satellite data sets tend to be largest over land areas, indicating that there may still be some contamination because of various aspects of land surface change, atmospheric aerosols and the tendency of shallow boundary layers to warm at a greater rate [Esau, 2008; Christy et al., 2009]. Trends in minimum temperatures in northern polar areas are statistically significantly greater than the trends in maximum temperatures over northern polar areas during the boreal winter months.

[1] This paper documents various unresolved issues in using surface temperature trends as a metric for assessing global and regional climate change. A series of examples ranging from errors caused by temperature measurements at a monitoring station to the undocumented biases in the regionally and globally averaged time series are provided. The issues are poorly understood or documented and relate to micrometeorological impacts due to warm bias in nighttime minimum temperatures, poor siting of the instrumentation, effect of winds as well as surface atmospheric water vapor content on temperature trends, the quantification of uncertainties in the homogenization of surface temperature data, and the influence of land use/land cover (LULC) change on surface temperature trends. Because of the issues presented in this paper related to the analysis of multidecadal surface temperature we recommend that greater, more complete documentation and quantification of these issues be required for all observation stations that are intended to be used in such assessments. This is necessary for confidence in the actual observations of surface temperature variability and long-term trends.

This, clearly, is the difference between “climate science” and “science deniers.” Those who adhere to “climate science” wisely realize that defining a set of real-world parameters or observations by which we can test and potentially falsify a global warming theory is irrelevant and so nineteenth century. Modern climate science has gloriously progressed far beyond such irrelevant annoyances as the Scientific Method.

“One wonders why NOAA implemented the USCRN “…with 114 stations across the contiguous United States located in pristine, well-sited areas” given that there “…is no doubt that NOAA’s temperature record is scientifically sound and reliable.”

Technology and expectations evolve. Reading between the lines it becomes clear that NOAA and Mr. Watts agree that the existing network needed improvement. NOAA should thank Mr. Watts for publicly exposing and pushing the issue.”

The vehemence of the response questioning PBS for “permitting” your comments to be shown almost suggests a desire for censorship in reaction to blasphemy, as if someone had, ahem, dared call into question the agreed scriptures and dogma of a prophet in a video. Oh well, plus ca change, plus c’est la meme chose…

Those who scream the loudest usually have the most to hide or most to lose. By giving a public, highly-visible opinion that exposed the corruption of data, you touched a nerve. You threatened what the team values the most: money and influence.

I don’t care what anyone says, we have a long ways to go before science is fixed. Even when CAGW is long dead and buried, the team will just shift to some out pseudo-science and repeat the process. The people who tied their career to CAGW may be disgraced, but the eco-police will just find someone else to parrot their future line.

Specifically, NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center published a scientific peer-reviewed paper (Menne, et al., 2010) that compared trends from stations that were considered well-sited and stations that received lower ratings on siting conditions, which found that the U.S. average temperature trend is not inflated by poor station siting.

So, sites can be on top of buildings, over BBQs and at airports as the US average temperature trend ‘is not inflated by poor station siting.”.

If this is the case, why this?Looking ahead to the next century, NOAA has implemented the U.S. Climate Reference Network (USCRN) – with 114 stations across the contiguous United States located in pristine, well-sited areas.

Could they not save money and make recording temps much easier by placing sites in their parking lots so they can conveniently check them as they arrive at work and again when they go home?

Forgot to mention: NOAA = Jane Lubchenco, for the past couple of years. Lubchenco, along with Obama science czar John Holdren, are only a degree or two separated from anti-skeptic book author Ross Gelbspan, the guy I’ve long described as the epicenter of the smear of skeptic climate scientists. I detailed the various connections here and in the articles I link to within it: “White House Involved in Warmist Smear Campaign” http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/11/white_house_involved_in_warmist_smear_campaign.html

I had posted this several hours ago at the PBS site. Still in “moderation”. I do not see how this comment is in violation of their policies.

I am amazed by the harshness of many comments here. There are problems with the old temperature measurement system due to the effects of urbanization and land use changes. The US has recently installed a new temperature monitoring system in response to the known problems with the old and Watts and others have been part of the discovery of those problems. It seems shortsighted to be critical of the search for accurate data

I second another commenter’s suggestion that this pandering-to-the-crowd piece by Michels deserves a point-by-point rebuttal. A rebuttal that is polite, professional, and objective. But clear and precise.

An alternative explanation for differential temperature trends at the surface and in the lower troposphere

[1] This paper investigates surface and satellite temperature trends over the period from 1979 to 2008. Surface temperature data sets from the National Climate Data Center and the Hadley Center show larger trends over the 30-year period than the lower-tropospheric data from the University of Alabama in Huntsville and Remote Sensing Systems data sets. The differences between trends observed in the surface and lower-tropospheric satellite data sets are statistically significant in most comparisons, with much greater differences over land areas than over ocean areas. These findings strongly suggest that there remain important inconsistencies between surface and satellite records.

We find that there have, in general, been larger linear trends in surface temperature data sets such as the NCDC and HadCRUTv3 surface data sets when compared with the UAH and RSS lower-tropospheric data sets, especially over land areas. This variation in trends is also confirmed by the larger temperature anomalies that have been reported for near surface air temperatures [e.g., Zorita et al., 2008; Chase et al., 2006, 2008; Connolley, 2008]. The differences between surface and satellite data sets tend to be largest over land areas, indicating that there may still be some contamination because of various aspects of land surface change, atmospheric aerosols and the tendency of shallow boundary layers to warm at a greater rate [Esau, 2008; Christy et al., 2009]. Trends in minimum temperatures in northern polar areas are statistically significantly greater than the trends in maximum temperatures over northern polar areas during the boreal winter months.

1) So, assume, as has been proven, that every plant on earth is growing faster, greener (darker) and taller/wider/higher in the 60 years between 1950 and 2012.

2) A greater growth in plankton, coral, and the seaweeds will not substantially change the ocean’s albedo, the amount of energy absorbed from the sun, nor its reflectivity.

3) Higher in Arctic lands and tundra – but NOT in the Arctic Ocean itself – the darker land caused by higher plant growth will cause greater absorption of energy (during the summer) and more trees and plants sticking up through the snow in the winter. Both will increase energy absorption and thus Arctic (but not Antarctic) temperatures in the few places where there are reliable arctic temperatures between 65 degrees north and 70 north. (Note – there is NO Arctic sea ice at time of minimum extent in September lower than 80 north. Land temperatures for a region 600 miles south of the sea ice southernmost extents will not change sea ice melting.)

Therefore, increased CO2 “does” explain the noted land mass temperatures – due to greater plant growth and a darker land mass – but the greater land temperatures also can be explained simultaneously with the insignificant change in sea surface temperatures.

Government-paid “climate” models do not fare so well however. Tree ring proxies for temperature fare even worse, because at no point does Mann’s tree-ring calc’s include factors for a greater tree growth due to – not temperature, but greater CO2 amounts in the air the trees breathe.

Reminds me very much of WWF putting out a Press Release a short time after Donna Laframboise’s The Delinquent Teenager … was published. WWF made a highly risible attempt to paper over the irrefutable evidence – found in her book – of the blatant undeclared conflict of interest on the part of IPCC authors who were/are also involved in WWF’s so-called “Science Advisory Panel”.

But that aside ..

There may (or may not) be a hint of silver lining to be found here. Notwithstanding this backtrack (10:10 … no pressure, anyone?!) from Michels, Muller’s additional “airtime” granted in this piece is a mere 2:26 minutes. Anthony’s was 9:34 minutes as I recall.

We already know how much time (approx. three hours as I recall) the production team spent interviewing Anthony. What we don’t know is how much time they spent with Muller. Nor do we know what was not included from either of the interviews.

That being the case, I wonder if Michels/PBS would be willing to share their raw footage for both interviews. Obviously during an actual program one expects some filtering in order to convey their “storyline”: In this instance, Muller’s headline-seeking (non-) conversion which they seem to have learned about via the NYT Op Ed (without doing any further background research).

But surely PBS viewers are an intelligent bunch of people who are quite capable of making up their own minds about a contentious issue.

Providing raw-footage of both interviews would give PBS an opportunity to show how much they respect the intelligence of their viewers (even if the activist-scientists and their marauding army of acolytes and lesser-lights obviously do not!) And it would give them an opportunity to demonstrate how unslanted and “fair and balanced” PBS reportage really is, would it not?!

Of course, if they were to decline such an invitation … well, one would have to ask, why are they choosing not to disclose their raw footage of these two interviews?!

They sucked up to Anthony, who herded us all to a hostile cite, PBS, so that
1) they get our IP addresses, and sniff our surfing histories
2) they can boost their hit numbers parasitically foraging off WUWT’s popularity
3) our computers will get infected with leftist stupid-ness

I’ve been waiting for a quieter moment to bring up the Rapid Response Network but now that I think about it, we probably never will have a quieter time. So I’m going to get the ball rolling on this and keep the development percolating away as we furiously pound away on other projects. At the start of the year, I considered this the most significant SkS project of 2011 and if it grows as I hope, it may still be (although so many things are in motion now, who knows where we’ll be in a few weeks time, let alone the end of the year).

The point of the Rapid Response Network is fairly simple – monitor skeptic articles in mainstream media and keep track of what responses have been made. So the system will list the latest mainstream articles (and other media, blogs, etc but the emphasis will be on mainstream). Users can log what responses they’ve made – letters to the editor, post an online comment, call the reporter, submit an opinion piece, etc. So we’ll keep track of what’s going on, support each other as we attempt responses and by seeing what everyone is doing, will give us ideas of what is possible and how to do it.

Here’s a basic flowchart of the system as it will be in its simplest starting out form:

[embeded]

If the system grows and is widely used, I’ll develop it further and add extra features. Eg:

Article Filter. Initially, system will show all articles to everyone. But as the system grows, users will be able to filter the articles to only show what they’re interested in, filtering by:
Region (may wish to focus on local newspapers)
Language (so the system can include non-English articles)
Publications (eg – they want to focus on articles in certain newspapers or blogs)
Topic (eg – ocean science, policy & solutions
Gradually we’ll build a database of journalists and editors with contact details, making it easier for users to get in touch with them
Various subscription services so users can sign up to receive daily or instant notification when a new article is submitted, based on region, newspaper or topic
Investigate ways to prioritise articles, possibly by circulation or audience numbers? In the meantime, use Alexa rank as a measure of comparative popularity.
“Invite a Friend” feature. The system will probably be private and invitation only but maybe I’ll add a feature that lets users invite friends so the network can grow virally. Would have to be careful about this though.
So before I start coding, feedback on how this system could be developed and improved are welcome. And I’d also welcome a better title than ‘Rapid Response Network’ which is too close to Scott Mandia and John Abraham’s “Climate Science Rapid Response Team”.

Despite the fairness of Spencer Michaels report, which was even handed to a fault, they, the fanatical warmists, want to talk about bias at PBS. You’ve just shown how biased they are in the other direction.

“Natural climate change in the past proves that climate is sensitive to an energy imbalance. If the planet accumulates heat, global temperatures will go up. Currently, CO2 is imposing an energy imbalance due to the enhanced greenhouse effect. Past climate change actually provides evidence for our climate’s sensitivity to CO2. ”

Sound familiar? It’s exactly the same Red Herring Tactic used by Collins above. A quick glance through the article and you will find the words “internal variability”. But what does the article say about internal variability?

In the cargo cult science world, any “internal variability” is dismissed as noise. This shocking dismissive behavior is without foundation.
While a clear mechanism where internal variability can cause significant warming or cooling remains elusive, there is absolutely no grounds to dismiss its importance. Remember absence of proof is not proof of absence.

Of course, the word “internal variability” is hyperlinked, so maybe I’m being a bit harsh….better double check…..

The Huffington Post is having a fit over Anthony being included in the PBS story. There are many nasty comments there. I just posted there as follows:

The theory is that the global warming crisis is the result of the greenhouse effect of increased atmospheric carbon dioxide from the exhaust of fossil fuel burning internal combustion engines. This theory has never been proven. Carbon Dioxide is essential to life of both plants and animals. It is not a pollutant. After 150 years of increased CO2 content via buring of fossil fuels, it remains a tiny trace gas in the atmoshpere and no one has proved that it is having a significant impact on temperatures. Computer models don’t prove the theory, they only show what the result will be if the theory is correct. Like it or not, significant man-made global warming is unproven and there is no crisis. Relax and enjoy our lives thanks to the electricty powered society we enjoy with smart phones and computers, A/C and heating, health care and increased food production and transportation all thanks to one of the greatest inventions in history, the fossil fuel powered internal combusion engine.

ROFLMAO! Skeptical Science? The cartoonist run website that censors all dissenting opinion because they do not want you to know they are all leftists who are a partnership with Al Gore and believe Al Jazeera to be unbiased.

Theodore White – you say “… though claiming what the climate will be like 50 years from now but they cannot forecast the climate/weather 50 DAYS from now. Does anyone find that curious? I sure do.”.
I’ve seen this argument used quite often, but I don’t think it is valid. The skills needed for decadal climate forecasting are largely different to those needed for daily weather forecasting.
I’m not saying that anyone can correctly predict climate 50 years out, just that the inability to predict weather 50 days out isn’t all that relevant.

And – sorry to be so negative – I don’t think AGW violates the laws of thermodynamics either. AGW is wrong, but for different reasons.

Kudos to PBS for inviting Mr. Watts to answer questions regarding his perspective/expertise on the climate change issue. Hopefully, judging by the reaction from the proponents of CAGW, we may yet see an honest and informative debate on a respected (by most folks) publicly funded broadcast. Maybe a special “Frontline” which, in my opinion, presents a balanced and in depth perspective on the controversial topics.of our time. Maybe, with viewer support, we could make this happen. One can only hope.

The level of vitriol is amazing at the various usual alarmists locations esp Romm world; though you should be careful Mr. Watts. The level of hate is smoking my laptop CPU through the web. I had been led to believe the progressives were tolerant people…

I thought the interview was very well done if a bit too polite on Anthony’s part. The best things that I have learned from this site are how to spot the warmist’s slants, cherry picking and outright fakery. It’s too bad that the “others” refuse to learn as well. Don’t think I’ve ever seen such vehemence from people who have their ears plugged and eyes closed while shouting “na-na-na, can’t hear you!” Quite a closed minded group.
For those wondering about the site’s rank:http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/wattsupwiththat.com

Another vote of thanks to Anthony Watts (and Spencer Michels) for at least putting diversity in the AGW debate on national TV.

It is interesting to see how the topic was covered and how so many falsehoods seem to have been aired without any checking. I wonder if it is worth crowd sourcing a fact checking exercise against the whole report, including any errors Anthony may have made (if any). I just don’t understand how items such as the 97%, peer-review is just making a paper public, and humans are responsible exclusively for warming since 1793 can be portrayed without checking by the production team.

And the vitriol on the PBS Newshour comments is just shocking. People would do well to pay attention to the comment that said something along the lines of do you really want a society where dissenting views are never aired. Please learn about intolerant societies from a historical perspective.

Anthony said about the interview: “On the plus side, he [Mr Michels] said something off camera that I thought was quite curious at the end of the interview: You don’t seem that extreme.”

*

Now he’s learning who the extremists really are. So are a few others. Anyone wondering what the fuss and objection is about will perhaps pop into WUWT to find out (it’s happened before and with good results – people get the blinkers whipped off in here). I am sure there were, or will be, plenty of support for you shown to PBS to balance the bias against you.

Anthony, hang in there, mate, this reaction from the alarmists show just how scared they are. The more rational out there will also not like being told what they should think or what they should include in a show. Whether you get equal or more pro-votes at PBS or not, you will have won quite a few more hearts and souls.

Nerd says:
September 18, 2012 at 5:20 pm
Wow. Warmists have gone crazy. This reminds me of good old days of debates over whether consumption of saturated fat and cholesterol really cause heart disease (they don’t at all) and lately at least for me on whether sun really causes skin cancers (a huge catch 22 considering vitamin D is very potent cancer fighter that can prevent all kinds of cancers considering that most people are deficient in vitamin D).

those google algorithms are as random as ever. searched PBS+Anthony Watts, then clicked News, and got this top six grouping:

Media Matters
HuffPo
Desmog
PBS
PBS
PBS

underneath that group in “news” is

ThinkProgress
OnEarthMag

nothing more listed as “news” on the search.

altho many of the above were posted approx 12-13 hours ago, and this particular WUWT thread we’re on now is listed as being posted 6 hours ago, i have to go down the second page of initial results to find this thread.

I note that it is “O.K.” to publish pro-AGW, mainstream interviews and articles without including or following up with counterbalancing skeptical views being expressed. The opposite is seldom the accepted practice, as PBS just demonstrated.

That said, any mainstream public hearing at all for skeptical views on AGW is a vast improvement over the not-so-distant past. Good effort, guys!

Anthony,
I have to ask. It seems you spent quite a bit of time with Spencer. I know in the role he was in that he is supposed to try and remain impartial, but he had to walk away from your house with a decent understanding of why the Skeptics remain so steadfast. Do you think that he may have walked away with just a bit more skepticism than when he arrived?
REPLY: I think he did, but I also think he put some of that into the report. He could see that I was rational and had a solid reason for everything I said. I just think the higher ups in DC had other things to say about it. – Anthony

Mr. Watts, there is one piece of context that I believe is missing from nearly every single discussion I have seen concerning “global warming” and here I will attempt to provide it. The Little Ice Age is recognized by most to have been ending at around the middle of the 19th century. Anywhere from 1850 to 1870 are commonly recognized times for the end of the LIA. This is at about the same time the thermometer was being widely deployed. The land surface record from, say, 1850 to 1930 records the recovery out of the LIA. The period from about 1912 to 1934 saw warming at about the same rate and of about the same magnitude as temperatures from 1975 to 2002. The recovery from the LIA so far as I can determine lasted until the 1930’s and after that period we had some normal variation where it cooled some until the mid-1970s and warmed again in the 2000’s to about the same as the 1930s were. We really have had no significant warming beyond the temperatures of the 1930s and the trend since 2004 has been one of cooling again.

I do not for a moment deny that temperature records from the middle to late 19th century into the early 20th century show warming. We also know that human CO2 emissions during that period could not have been of significant enough amount to have an impact on global temperatures. It seems clear to me that this is nothing more than natural recovery from the LIA and changes since that time have been normal expected variation in climate both cooler and warmer but not significantly exceeding the temperatures of 1933/1934. So far I have seen nothing to convince me that any human activity has caused any unusual change in climate.

As for atmospheric CO2: if human CO2 emissions were a significant component of atmospheric CO2 rise, when human emissions DROPPED in 2009, the rate of global atmospheric CO2 increase should have also declined. It didn’t. In fact, as human CO2 emissions have increased dramatically since the 1970’s to today as places such as India, China, and Brazil have industrialized, the rate of atmospheric CO2 increase has been rather linear. There is no evidence that this increase in human CO2 emissions since the 1970’s have had a great impact on the rate of global atmospheric CO2 increase. There is also another very likely cause for current atmospheric CO2 increase and that is again recovery from the LIA. If you consider that we went through a period of colder than normal temperatures for about 500 years, I believe this also cooled the abyssal ocean by some amount during that period (by how much I wouldn’t speculate). It is easy to cool a body of water from cooling the surface due to convection. Colder water is wont to sink. It takes about 800 years to completely “ventilate” the ocean, that is to completely circulate the ocean waters back into contact with the atmosphere. We experienced cool temperatures for nearly one complete ventilation cycle. We are only 160 years or so since the end of the LIA. As the oceans are ventilated in our slightly warmer climate, I would expect the ocean to be undergoing a net loss of CO2 as it gradually warms from the LIA recovery. I would expect this recovery to take several centuries to complete as the water last ventilated during the LIA is again exposed to the atmosphere for gas exchange. To expect this process to take some 500 or so years would not seem outrageous to me. Additionally there is the expected increase in CO2 production from increased summer thawing of various tundra and muskeg in the boreal continental land masses.

So what I am trying to say is that in the context of the recovery of the global climate from a very cold period that lasted some several centuries, both the temperature and CO2 rise really doesn’t surprise me. But in any case, I don’t see any evidence of humans having any significant impact on temperatures and global CO2 change does not seem to vary significantly with variations in human caused CO2 emissions.

You have my respect and support for appearing on a media outlet and putting forward a sensible and balanced argument in the face of an intransigent and agenda-driven cabal.

However, for what my opinion is worth, I think that the argument of UHI affected data is, although very possibly valid, a poor argument with which to present a sceptical case.

You will now get embroiled in a ‘my data is better than yours’ argument with a massive ‘peer-review is what it’s all about’ establishment group, and the media will almost certainly give more say to the establishment.

Sceptics should really be attacking the basic theory, not the data. The data – even the probably over-estimated ‘Team’ data – does not support the theory that CO2 can cause a catastrophic warming. Given the IPCC’s own words and data, a suitably robust argument could be made that the evidential observed data has effectively falsified that theory.

The ‘Team’ can argue all day about data collection and that debate will simply drain time and energy. It is s sideshow compared to showing Joe Public why the CO2=cAGW theory is just plain nonsense – and demonstrably so.

I’ll try to make my point with a few questions for the ‘Team':
1. What is the contribution of CO2 to the Greenhouse Effect? (They say appx 25%)
2. What is the current level of CO2 and what is the current Greenhouse Effect?
3. What was the level of CO2 in 1850 (IPCC date) and what was the Greenhouse Effect then?
4. Can you explain the ensuing anomaly using real, empirical evidence (not models)? If so…please do.

A suitable argument against the theory:
a. Accepts that a single molecule of CO2 has radiative properties.
b. Does not make the huge assumption that those properties can in any way significantly apply to the atmosphere as a whole without making further, unproven, assumptions.
c. Invites the opponent to use his/her own empirical data (not models).
d. Invites the IPCC’s assertions to be discredited by facts.
e. Is based on logic, reason and the scientific method, not faith and assumption.

The bottom line is simple. If the data does not support the theory, revisit the theory, not the data.

I have done a bit of research recently and I honestly think the Alarmist zealots are fewer in number than many think…. Sure there are the masses who just nod and agree with a stand point without even bothering to do any basic research ( about 95% probably ) but the actual engine stokers of the Alarmist campaign, those who inflate the findings of so-called scientist for their own propaganda are not that numerous. I think THAT is why they are really worried by the truth and freedom to speak. I think Anthony you are hated because you command a huge following of in-the-main reasonable open minded folk, academic and not I thinks its the frustration they are now feeling after seeing the death of the IPCCs credibility, the ridicule of Mann’s behaviour and his inability to re-visit his own work and the clear sea-change in public opinion with regards climate. They have abandoned weather-is-not-climate totally in desperation now and their shallow defence for why you are so wrong ( ie just look at the weather we had this year ) speak volumes. For me the interview and the responses were encouraging. I always knew I was batting for the right side but now hopefully maybe more others with witness this charade and switch teams.

Some warmists view their campaign as a “war”, I think in their mind you are getting to the equivalent of their ‘bunker’.

Hopefully when most people look at the vitriol of the comments made by the ‘rent a warmist’ and ‘hide the debate’ crowd in contrast to Anthony’s reasonable comments it may result in further interest. (Assuming Anthony survives the ‘bullet holes’).

Richard Muller a reformed sceptic??? Can someone tell me when he was a sceptic and when he reformed?Muller in quotes:

“If Al Gore reaches more people and convinces the world that global warming is real, even if he does it through exaggeration and distortion – which he does, but he’s very effective at it – then let him fly any plane he wants.” – Richard Muller, 2008
——————–
“There is a consensus that global warming is real. …it’s going to get much, much worse.” – Richard Muller, 2008
——————–
“Let me be clear. My own reading of the literature and study of paleoclimate suggests strongly that carbon dioxide from burning of fossil fuels will prove to be the greatest pollutant of human history. It is likely to have severe and detrimental effects on global climate.” – Richard Muller, 2003

I he was ever a sceptic then why did he turn? Money has nothing to do with it. Never listen to people who tell you follow the money when it comes to climate scientists cashing in.

MULLER AND ASSOCIATES
Power and Energy, Climate Change, Profitable Sustainability
Muller & Associates bridges knowledge gaps to demystify complex technical issues so that clients can make educated decisions. We are able to quickly cut through the “sales talk” and help our clients select the best option for their specific needs.

Muller & Associates provides expertise for energy challenges that deserve the best minds in the world. Our senior-level team includes Nobel Laureates, MacArthur Geniuses, and recognized global leaders with experience in over 30 countries. We integrate science with business acumen, economics, and long-term trends to ensure that our clients are making the right investments for their organization.http://mullerandassociates.com/

Then there is this funny looking graph from Muller and Associates which causes me to panic.

Ally E. says:
September 18, 2012 at 9:44 pm
“Anthony said about the interview: “On the plus side, he [Mr Michels] said something off camera that I thought was quite curious at the end of the interview: You don’t seem that extreme.””

The cult-like atmosphere surrounding climate change in the media (cult-like as they try to shield the members from controversial information; a primary cult-forming technique) means that members of the cult have a distorted view of reality. In this case, Michels was confronted with reality and had to choose whether to believe his cult programming or his own eyes.

Talking about data sets, how is it NOAA, GISS and CRU data sets all show a different rate of trend, that in it’s self does not give any confidence in their accuracy, is it more a reflection of there advocacy? It will be interesting to watch how they compare with each other in the future, especially if temperatures fall away. By the way Mr Watts, after your well balanced interview, I was disgusted at some of the comments directed at you, they were bordering on insanity,

Talking about data sets, how is it NOAA, GISS and CRU data sets all show a different rate of trend, that in it’s self does not give any confidence in their accuracy, is it more a reflection of there advocacy?

A complete answer to your question is provided by my submission to the UK Parliamentary Inquiry (i.e. whitewash) into climategate.

A terrible indictment on the freedom of speech, we are supposed to enjoy in the western world.
If you are for AGW et all you are allowed to speak lies and drivel and not be taken to task, however try it the other way around and the Fascists arrive in droves. Dr Goebbels stated that “if you tell a big enough lie and keep repeating it , it will be believed”.
He was a nice honest chap was he not, any dissenting voices were silenced, usually by force.
PBS should run a meet the “fascists in our midst” half hour and list the ones who have had a “hissy fit” at Antony appearing.

As well as Anthony did, why did PBS only include a quote from Dr Curry and not a full interview from someone in academe. Further why didn’t they interview any of dozens of scientists who are also skeptical of a variety of assertions by the AGW crowd. PBS did not really want an unbiased piece, since if they did there were many, many more voices they could have drawn on. Of course if they did a completely fair and balanced show, there would have been a complete revolt on their hands by the true believers. And then what.

While not a fan of consensus science, will any completely credible and unbiased organization do a study of what the total climate science community really thinks. It could be something like showing the median or mean or mode expression of the proportionality between AGW and natural variability. That is the real issue. Something like “the average breakdown between AGW and Natural Variability among these scientists is 50% AGW and 50% NV or any such distribution between the 2 factors. It drives me crazy to see and hear the “97% of scientists believe AGW” when the sampled population was so small.

Seems to me that a certain number of Urban sensors are essential to properly sample the landscape of USA. Urban areas are relevant. The question is how many urban sensors ought there be to adequately map, proportionately, the surface of USA including urban areas. I suspect that urban area represents 1% or less of the land area in the USA consequently 1% or less of the sensors ought to be in urban area, and in area within the urban setting that is representative of the nominal surroundings.

Is land area the normalizer to assign sensor density?

Seems to me that it should. However I can see that the number of sensors near populations should be high to increase resolution of data for USA inhabitants. Weather is relevant to public safety so you need sensors where people are located.

If the latter is the case, then the more remote sensors ought to be weighted based on the land area that the sensor represents.

Nerd says:
September 18, 2012 at 5:20 pmWow. Warmists have gone crazy. This reminds me of good old days of debates over whether consumption of saturated fat and cholesterol really cause heart disease (they don’t at all) and lately at least for me on whether sun really causes skin cancers (a huge catch 22 considering vitamin D is very potent cancer fighter that can prevent all kinds of cancers considering that most people are deficient in vitamin D).

Things never change with these “liberal” people.
_____________________________________

Nerd is absolutely correct. The current situation of nutrition and medicine is so similar to CAGW it’s uncanny. You have a growing number of skeptics who are questioning the conventional wisdom (stay away from fat and cholesterol, eat your “healthy whole grains” and take your statins) and fighting the powers that be (government, industry, ignorant public) who use the same tactics as the alarmists. As with CAGW it all started with an obviously flawed study (Ancel Key’s Seven Countries Study – the equivalent of MBH98) that got government via the USDA, FDA, AHA, ADA and the NAS to promote a theory that has enriched the big corporations (Big Ag, Big Medical, Big Pharma) while leading to an epidemic of obesity, diabetes, heart disease and autoimmune disorders due to chronic inflammation.

I’m not trying to take this off topic but if you follow the conventional wisdom regarding your health you should probably start using the same skeptical approach you use for CAGW to what you end up putting in your mouth.

“”Comparing several years of trends from the well-sited USCRN stations with USHCN shows that the temperature trends closely correspond – again validating the accuracy of the USHCN U.S. temperature record.””

Closely correspond? If they’re not dead on the same numbers than the rest of your stations are WRONG. A trend is a wiggly line, not a hard data-set.

“There is no such thing as man-made global warming. There never has been and never will be either. It violates the first and second laws of Thermodynamics – the very laws of physics.”

Back in the 1960’s my very first physics instructor made it very clear that our culture of energy use could in no way affect climate one way or another. He was in his 60’s at the time and saw the future of this debate. His comments around the political based science were the beginnings of my question everything.

As for UHI, that is not climate change but rather a local effect. Just as is lake effect climates, or mountain effect and so forth. While my north side front porch is 81 F, the south side patio is 115 F; my very own local climate change weather maker. The folks in the AGW camp are mean spirited and their agenda is obviously not science based, but rather the never ending ageless narcissistic greed factor.

FYI – One of the best graphical illustrations I have seen of an Urban Heat Island appears in “The Washington Star Garden BooK” by Wilbur H. Youngman. The Washington Star was an old Washington DC newspaper. Near the back of the book (on page 231), two maps of the Washington DC area are shown – “Average Dates of Earliest Freezing Temperatures in The Fall” and “Average Dates of Latest Freezing Temperatures in The Spring.” These maps are credited to C. A. Woollum U.S.W. B. which I assume is the U.S. Weather Bureau as it was called then. The maps were based on observations for the period 1946-1960. It even calls the highest temperature center the “Urban Heat Island”. The center of the UHI includes National Airport which I believe is where the “official” DC temperature is measured.

Anyone else notice the similarity between a non-alarmist opinion appearing in a forum like PBS’s and cartoons of Mohammed appearing in the Middle East? Extreme orthodoxy does not tolerate apostasy and heresy well.

RACookPE1978 says:
September 18, 2012 at 7:34 pm
William says:
September 18, 2012 at 6:29 pm
RACookPE1978,
I do not understand you comment.

I provided a link to two peer reviewed papers both of which support Anthony Watts’ assertion that the surface temperature measurements by weather stations is contaminated by the urban heat affect.

Planetary temperature rise as measured by satellites shows significantly less warming than planetary temperature as measured by the weather stations which supports the assertion that the urban heat effect is contaminating the surface temperature data.

http://pielkeclimatesci.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/r-321.pdf
[1] This paper investigates surface and satellite temperature trends over the period from 1979 to 2008. Surface temperature data sets from the National Climate Data Center and the Hadley Center show larger trends over the 30-year period than the lower-tropospheric data from the University of Alabama in Huntsville and Remote Sensing Systems data sets. The differences between trends observed in the surface and lower-tropospheric satellite data sets are statistically significant in most comparisons, with much greater differences over land areas than over ocean areas. These findings strongly suggest that there remain important inconsistencies between surface and satellite records.

The second paper analyzes nightly low temperatures as compared to afternoon high temperatures and finds evidence of the urban heat effect as the difference between the two is decreasing.

There are three issues 1) those who are nobly manipulating data to push the extreme AGW paradigm do not acknowledge the obvious contamination of the surface temperature data by the urban heat affect, 2) those how are nobly pushing the extreme AGW paradigm do not acknowledge that satellite data shows the planet was warmed significantly less than the surface temperature data, and 3) those who are nobly pushing the extreme AGW paradigm do not acknowledge that top of the atmosphere radiation measurements vs ocean surface temperature changes indicates that planet’s response to a change in forcing is to resist the forcing change by increasing or decreasing clouds in the tropics (negative feedback) thereby reflecting more or less sunlight off into space.

If the planet’s response to a change in forcing is negative (resists forcing change) as opposed to the IPCC general circulation models’ assumed forcing amplification (positive feedback) a doubling of CO2 will result in less than 1C warming with majority of the warming occurring at high latitude regions which will result in the biosphere expanding.

The so called “skeptics” have won the scientific argument. Those who are nobly pushing the extreme AGW paradigm do not acknowledge that the “skeptics” have won the scientific argument. That is the reason why there has not been a public scientific debate concerning extreme AGW.

There is no extreme AGW problem to solve. We therefore do not need to spend trillions of dollars with a resulting massive increase in debit and unemployment to fight a problem which is not a problem.

This, clearly, is the difference between “climate science” and “science deniers.” Those who adhere to “climate science” wisely realize that defining a set of real-world parameters or observations by which we can test and potentially falsify a global warming theory is irrelevant and so nineteenth century. Modern climate science has gloriously progressed far beyond such irrelevant annoyances as the Scientific Method.
There is no extreme AGW warming problem to solve.

http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/236-Lindzen-Choi-2011.pdf
On the Observational Determination of Climate Sensitivity and Its Implications
We estimate climate sensitivity from observations, using the deseasonalized fluctuations in sea surface temperatures (SSTs) and the concurrent fluctuations in the top-of-atmosphere (TOA) outgoing radiation from the ERBE (1985-1999) and CERES (2000-2008) satellite instruments. … ….We argue that feedbacks are largely concentrated in the tropics, and the tropical feedbacks can be adjusted to account for their impact on the globe as a whole. Indeed, we show that including all CERES data (not just from the tropics) leads to results similar to what are obtained for the tropics alone – though with more noise. We again find that the outgoing radiation resulting from SST fluctuations exceeds the zerofeedback response thus implying negative feedback. In contrast to this, the calculated TOA outgoing radiation fluxes from 11 atmospheric models forced by the observed SST are less than the zerofeedback response, consistent with the positive feedbacks that characterize these models. The results imply that the models are exaggerating climate sensitivity…. ….However, warming from a doubling of CO2 would only be about 1C (based on simple calculations where the radiation altitude and the Planck temperature depend on wavelength in accordance with the attenuation coefficients of wellmixed CO2 molecules; a doubling of any concentration in ppmv produces the same warming because of the logarithmic dependence of CO2’s absorption on the amount of CO2) (IPCC, 2007)….

This modest warming is much less than current climate models suggest for a doubling of CO2. Models predict warming of from 1.5C to 5C and even more for a doubling of CO2. Model predictions depend on the ‘feedback’ within models from the more important greenhouse substances, water vapor and clouds. Within all current climate models, water vapor increases with increasing temperature so as to further inhibit infrared cooling. Clouds also change so that their visible reflectivity decreases, causing increased solar absorption and warming of the earth….

The CAGW crowd has failed to recognize the general public has yet to experience any of the Algorian inconveniences to which they espouse. They continue as if blinded and deaf; purveyors of Snake Oil, having lived out any notion of legitimacy, thus choice-less, must carry the torch by means of livelihood.

Lubchenco is a member of the NAS Climate Choices Committee. She served, until her NOAA appointment, on the boards of World Resources Institute, (Al Gore is on the board), Environmental Defense, and on advisory committees for the National Research Council, the National Science Foundation and the United Nations Environment Programme.

She was a contributor to the 1991 report of the National Research Council, Policy Implications of Greenhouse Warming, along with Stephen Schneider, Maurice Strong, Tom Karl, William Nordhaus and others. She is a long time associate of John Holdren, who is also on the “Climate Choices Committee” and “was mentioned for her contribution to The Meaning of Sustainability: Biogeophysical Aspects, by John P. Holdren, Gretchen C. Daily, and Paul R. Ehrlich, 1995. Distributed for the United Nations University by The World Bank Washington, D.C.” “This paper benefited greatly from interactions with R. Cicerone, A. Coale, T. Dietz, P. Gleick, R. Heal, R. Lenski, M. McDonnell, J. Lubchenco (and others)”

She was, again until 2008, and maybe still is, an Advisory Board Member of Diversitas, a UN linked, international-government funded diversity institute, along with Paul Ehrlich, of Stanford. Its Scientific Committee is chaired by Harold Mooney, of Stanford.

I agree there is a strong element of bias in perceptions, both with the published science and with Anthony’s interview, as seen and heard by the True Believers in CAGW. I was sent this today – a clear-cut case of genuine man-in-the-street confirmation bias about a very topical object, an iPhone 5:

This shows how easily people can convince themselves whatever they want about what they see and touch (in this case). Perhaps that will become a classic video.

When people heard Anthony say something about temperatures, they all rushed to their favourite arguments about ‘records’ and ‘heat’ and ‘drought’ because it is what they know. They cannot pull out things they do not know. We see it over and over – they are not really engaged and listening, they are plotting their next ‘rebuttal’ without learning anything.

Anthony, your answers were ‘as mild as milk’. Thank you.

I have also written to the ombusdman about the pressure from paid organisations threatening the flow of funding if they (PBS) dare discuss climate issues openly. PBS has been a ‘union shop’ for such a long time it actually seems odd to have a countervailing point of view about what is taking place in the atmosphere and its ramifications. Good for them, they are broadening, not deadening, their view.

The over-reaction of the warmist clique is expected – bullying is their last hope because a frank discussion would see their climate-castles-in-the-air move distinctly earthward. With a plunk.

This is what happens when you try to bring a sense of reason into this subject. The mere fact that PBS tried to be somewhat balanced is rather impressive. As far as NOAA, a lot of time and money has gone into their work, and they are going to stand by it come hell or high water.

By having you on PBS, your comments, as moderate as they were, instill doubt into the AGW theory. We’re to be indoctrinated by this theory. You, along with many others, are messing that up, and this is what so infuriates the AGW crowd (kinda like another religion we know).

My worry is that the mild terrorism that is being perpetrated through hate via online outlets, and even going so far as trying to defraud the Heartland Institute, may get even worse. Someone may very well snap, and do something really horrible. This world we are living in is becoming even darker, and terrorism in all its forms is becoming more commonplace (at least more openly common) in religion and politics (which climate science has become a part of unfortunately).

So we have the trotting out again of “peer review” (several times). In the context of Climategate and the clear “pal review”; that means they know they have to depend on ‘group support’ in the pal review process and that impartial analysis from outside the circle of Pals is a threat.

We have the repeated assertion that the data is good. Fine. Ideal! That shows they know they have cooked those books and must defend that data against questions (and the analysis that might follow)>

UHI is dismissed along with site issues. That shows they know that UHI is not handled properly and that station selection and siting are underpinings of the data diddling / adjusting / hockey stick creation. “Pay no attention to that concrete and exhaust vent behind the curtain”.

They trot out the “new” network and a long time horizon, and assert it will prove all is well as things match NOW. That shows they know the ‘warming’ is baked in the cake of the older data from the past. They KNOW that re-writing the past is the corner stone of ‘the game’, and what shows in the data now is just not important… since they control the past…

Then they trot out a non-skeptic non-conversion. They KNOW he was never a skeptic. That says they know they are using classical propaganda techniques and direct lying. There is no moral compass to be found.

It’s really not that hard to “read their tells”… just look at what they most loudly proclaim, behind it is the “bluff hand”.

NOAA says
‘The American public can be confident in NOAA’s long-standing surface temperature record, one of the world’s most comprehensive, accurate and trusted data sets’.

And they say “A one eyed man is king in a village of blind people”

A couple weeks ago our local TV news had an expos`e about the weather stations at DTW, Detroit Metro Airport, seems that because of their locations and the surrounding building causing the eddy currents in the wind, the control tower at times cannot tell what directions the wind is blowing or how fast or how gusty; occasionally this leads to an aircraft all but falling out of the air upon landing or coming in so hot they almost run off the runway. Of course the FAA reasured everyone that DTW was as safe as any airport in the nation, but the cynic in me heard that every where else was equally dangerous.

So, hate mail coming Anthony’s way? I can’t say that’s a total surprise to viewers of News Hour. The program has been heading down the tubes for some time now.

Besides the mild, genial tone of the man in the interview (and I don’t mean Muller), and besides the ordinary (almost bland) truths and directness of his observations about the climate, there was something else on display. For whatever reason, Spencer Michaels or his directors, or the producers chose to show Anthony’s office – the place where he works, so surprisingly modest – no expensive suburban two-story office for him, nor well-staffed urban office. I’ll repeat what many here are very aware of: despite PBS claims to the contrary. There have been no other skeptical voices interviewed or represented on The News Hour in recent history, and frankly, I think Anthony may have been the first, so that deck was well and truly stacked when Anthony agreed to be dealt in, The medium of News Hour has gradually become its message, and judging by the angry responses to Anthony’s appearance, they don’t want a spoiler for that message, even under the auspices of a “debate”, or for “balance”. Its viewers demand otherwise, and, perhaps more importantly, so do its funders. I suspect a cursory check of these agencies and the intent of their money would prove that they have an agenda favoring rent-seeking big government and the unending gravy train of global warming.

For years, the government warmists refused even to acknowledge the names of skeptics like McIntyre and Watts because it threatened their consensus meme. Now one not only has a voice, but an identify, complete with the image of his modest-looking office in Chico California. One can only imagine, then, the pique, the ire, the self-righteous indignation, to see this one man, this … upstart Anthony Watts fellow with his cottage industry of followers elevated to national prominence. with all the attendant, unspeakable humiliation to the “science” – the holy sanctuary of the Washington elite.

This back-pedalling is no joke. It is part of a worrying trend I’ve noted and I’m sure others have too. The USA as a bastion of freedom to do and to say for the world is crumbling frighteningly. Its as if the tearing down of the iron curtain we celebrated not so long ago has released a virus that has infected the West. Freedom seemed more precious when we worried about losing it. It actually drove scientific and academic excellent. Now academic institutions in the US, the fifth estate, and influential statesmen are incubating this virus. It started off as “political correctness” that we used to joke about – now the joke is on us. What about Europe? Europe succumbed long ago – maybe Germany will recover. Ironically,Eastern Europe, India and China seem to be the unlikely saviours that have prevented the new order craziness from taking charge.

Sorry, I get a bit gloomy when I see former giants bullied and seemingly helpless. I guess to put it in perspective, PBS is a collective with a large birkenstock-foreign stationwagon element. It was brave of them to even consider irking their base, which doesn’t want controversy unless it is the pseudo-intellectual, politically correct kind.

PBS may be backtracking some, but those making comments (supporting Mr. Watts) there are not.

Example, from commenter duediligence

We should applaud PBS for including Mr. Watts in this program. His blog is reminiscent of the time when we all seemed much more diligent in the discovery of scientific knowledge, and argued far less from declarative authority. Let’s do some science! This should be the rallying cry from those having a debate. Let’s see your charts, your graphs, your assumptions! Can I see your data, your formulas, your techniques of discovery? Can I replicate your results? Mr. Watt’s blog goes a long way toward reimplementing that kind of inquiry, and is a very honest step toward being a good steward of our planet. Thanks PBS!

I did some quick research for you relating to a nasty AGW jihadist who calls himself SecularAnimist, who has been busy slandering you over at the PBS website. Like all warmies, he demonstrates a knack for cognitive dissonance through blatant hypocrisy by having the gall to use the word slander while he does exactly that!

SecularAnimist

“Anthony Watts is a deliberate liar, who paid by fossil fuel corporations to deceive the public about the reality of anthropogenic global warming, and to slander climate scientists. With this broadcast, you are legitimizing his deliberate lies, and abetting his slander. Perhaps this should not be surprising, considering the millions of dollars that the coal tycoon David Koch has donated to PBS, but it is nonetheless disappointing.”

1 day ago 11 Likes

NOTE: This is found on the PBS website as the 26th comment in this thread on the first page when sorted by oldest to newset. That direct link to the comment does not work since it is a discus site, with its retarded ‘newest first’ sort order and it shows only a short pagefull at a time.

Anyway, this toilet bug called “SecularAnimist” apparently has not ever had the courage to post here at WUWT ( perhaps he fears you will have his IP address ), but his name has come up in discussions on at least 5 different threads ( 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ).

As I have been so fond of pointing out lately: The conspiracy theorists almost always on the warmie side. Those that are most likely to believe in Roswell UFO’s, grassy knoll shooters, faked moon landings, 9/11 WTC inside job by Cheney and the Jews, will also believe in Global Warming from the magic molecule. They are Roseanne Barr and occupy Wall Street IQ level. They are Socialist malcontents, hardwired in their DNA to accept government control. They are the AGW target audience.

… and the proofs abound. Let’s see if we cannot find more stuff from this bitter malcontent “SecularAnimist”. Hmmmm, at YouTube he seems to have his own page ( asterisks added by me ) …

SecularAnimist commented 8 months ago :: Dude, capitalism is a steaming pile of sh*t on it’s last legs. Seriously , get over it because if you are under 50 – you’ll see it fall

SecularAnimist commented 9 months ago :: Industrial capitalism is collapsing. In other words, the bling bling era is coming to end. So join the f*cking REVOLUTION. Plus there are hot chicks:)

SecularAnimist commented 1 year ago :: Pure unadulterated anti-intellectual garbage. Everybody go pee your pants at the new world order. If anything the world needs a new world order – because the old one is crap – designed by people 300 years ago that did not understand human nature or science.

Is it any surprise that this cretin called “SecularAnimist” regularly comments at RealClimate? A website that moderates out almost all skeptic commentary regularly accepts and publishes the mindless rambling of this ugly child.

This is the type of person attracted to AGW. They know full well it is the expressway to Socialism which they adore and are working towards 24/7/365. These are the kinds of cretins you want to keep away from your daughters and everything else you care about. Needless to say, these are the types of people to keep out of elected office, they are President DingleBarry’s core constitutency. Never, ever vote for a Leftist, Socialist, Neo-Marxist, Neo-Communist, Green Watermellon or any combination thereof!

Blade says:
September 19, 2012 at 4:20 pm
My posts containing scientific links and NO vitriol get deleted and this piece of human excrement gets to post garbage like that makes me worried for the world. PBS check yourself.

Thank you for the time you spent Blade.

[Reply: I don’t know why, but I rescue and post all of them. It just may take a little more time. I suspect WordPress is responsible. — mod.]

I think from a skeptical perspective, this story with Watts is may not necessarily be a turning point, but rather an acknowledgement from “authority” that there are many people in america and around the world, that are good democratic citizens (what more could you want?) that don’t buy into this global warming scam, and rather than ignoring them, or ridiculing them (which they have been doing), the authorities have worked out (like just the other day) that it is far better to engage constructively with the skeptical public. That way if CAGW ever did occur, the skeptical mind would more likely concede defeat, or in the case CAGW was found to be false, the skeptical mind would be more forgiving towards those who wanted to decarbonise and as a result destroy civilization /democracy as we know it.

[Reply: I don’t know why, but I rescue and post all of them. It just may take a little more time. I suspect WordPress is responsible. — mod.]

To — mod.

I believe that David Ball [September 19, 2012 at 5:13 pm] was referring to the moderation at RealClimate where he cannot get any posts through, yet they do allow that malcontent called “SecularAnimist” to post regularly.